PIYUSH AGRAWAL,J. - (1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead Commandant, 26th Bn. PAC, gorakhpur as respondent no. 4 in the array of parties during the course of the day. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the State - respondents.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner was selected for the post of Constable in PAC, but he was not sent for training on account of pendency of criminal cases, which have been duly disclosed by the petitioner in affidavit. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgement and order dated 13.08.2019 passed by this Court in Writ A No. 12300 of 2019 (Manish Kumar Paswan Vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others), in which following order was passed by this Court:- "Petitioner claims to have been selected for appointment to the post of Constable in U.P. Police. He has, however, not been sent on training on account of his implication in two criminal cases. So far as the first case i.e. Case Crime No.287 of 2016 is concerned, the petitioner has already been acquitted. The offence otherwise was under Section 332, 353, 504 and 506 IPC, Police Station Baluwa, District Chandauli and the petitioner at the relevant point of time was a minor. So far as the second case i.e. Case Crime No.973 of 2017 is concerned, the proceedings have already been stayed by this Court. It is submitted that both the cases have been disclosed by the petitioner in his affidavit filed before the authority concerned, and there is no misrepresentation or suppression of facts. Submission is that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and others, 2016 (8) SCC 471, the authorities are required to examine petitioner's claim for appointment. Para 38 of the judgment in Avtar Singh (supra) reads as under:- "38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we summarise our conclusion thus:- 38.1. Information given to the employer by a candidate as to conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case, whether before or after entering into service must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information. 38.2. While passing order of termination of services or cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information. 38.3. The employer shall take into consideration the government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision. 38.4. In case there is suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal had already been recorded before filling of the application/verification form and such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any of the following recourses appropriate to the case may be adopted: 38.4.1. In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse. 38.4.2. Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee. 38.4.3. If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving moral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious nature, on technical ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee. 38.5. In a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate. 38.6. In case when fact has been truthfully declared in character verification form regarding pendency of a criminal case of trivial nature, employer, in facts and circumstances of the case, in its discretion, may appoint the candidate subject to decision of such case. 38.7. In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect to multiple pending cases such false information by itself will assume significance and an employer may pass appropriate order cancelling candidature or terminating services as appointment of a person against whom multiple criminal cases were pending may not be proper. 38.8. If criminal case was pending but not known to the candidate at the time of filling the form, still it may have adverse impact and the appointing authority would take decision after considering the seriousness of the crime. 38.9. In case the employee is confirmed in service, holding departmental enquiry would be necessary before passing order of termination/removal or dismissal on the ground of suppression or submitting false information in verification form. 38.10. For determining suppression or false information attestation/verification form has to be specific, not vague. Only such information which was required to be specifically mentioned has to be disclosed. If information not asked for but is relevant comes to knowledge of the employer the same can be considered in an objective manner while addressing the question of fitness. However, in such cases action cannot be taken on basis of suppression or submitting false information as to a fact which was not even asked for. 38.11. Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him."
(3.) Learned Standing Counsel states that claim of petitioner would be examined, in accordance with law.;